Re: [boost] [boost.test] Non-conforming operator new, AFAICT

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-23 04:22:26

Daryle Walker wrote:

> Shouldn't it be applied only if std::malloc returns NULL on 0-sized
> allocations?  A std::malloc implementation that returns unique pointers for
> zero sizes is OK.  Maybe something like:
> 
>     void *  p = std::malloc( n );
>     if ( !n && !p )  p = std::malloc( 1 );
>     return p;
> 
> would be better?

As far as I can tell, memory allocators usually allocate some smallest 
possible quantity (say 8 or 16 bytes), no matter how small the size is. 
This happens even on zero sized reuqests, when the allocator returns a non 
zero pointer.

So my proposed fix just does what the allocator does anyway. I don't think 
we need the extra complication. Besides, zero sized requests are probably 
rare anyway.

Markus